The United States government filed a 20-page brief defending OpenAI in a lawsuit brought by The New York Times, responding to claims that the company used copyrighted material without authorization to train its large language models (LLMs). The filing addresses the common industry practice of ingesting vast collections of published works — including copyrighted books, articles, and other media — into training datasets.
What the government brief argues
The brief asserts that “the United States has a strong interest in continuing to develop a robust and competitive artificial intelligence industry that sets the standard for the practice and procedure of AI use globally… As such, it is critical for the United States to ‘retain global leadership in artificial intelligence,’” referencing an executive order President Donald Trump signed last year.
It also warns that constraining LLM development based on a misunderstanding of fair use doctrine would impede creative and scientific progress and harm American prosperity and economic mobility.
The legal question: fair use and transformation
Central to the dispute is whether using copyrighted works to train AI models qualifies as fair use. Fair use is a copyright exception that, in certain situations, permits use of protected material without permission if the use is sufficiently transformative. Publishers, including The New York Times in this case, argue that companies such as OpenAI are not permitted to train models on their copyrighted works without authorization. The debate focuses on whether that use changes the original work enough to be legally permissible.
Related litigation and precedents
So far, litigation over AI training and copyright has often favored AI companies, but there are notable rulings. Last year, Judge William Alsup ordered Anthropic to pay a $1.5 billion copyright settlement to a group of writers whose works were used to train Anthropic’s models. Alsup’s ruling distinguished the company’s wrongdoing: Anthropic was penalized not for training models on protected works per se, but for obtaining books via illegal shadow libraries.
Alsup described LLM training as akin to a human reader aspiring to be a writer: the models learn from works not to reproduce or supplant them, but to move in a new direction and create something different.
Status and potential impact of the brief
The administration’s brief is not a court ruling; the case is being litigated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and the authors of the brief do not have judicial authority over the matter. Nonetheless, a government filing of this kind can carry political and persuasive weight and may influence judicial or public perception.
Why it matters
The outcome of this case could shape how AI companies are allowed to use copyrighted materials for model training, affecting corporate practices, competition in the AI sector, and the United States’ position in global AI development.
Summary
The 20-page government brief filed on behalf of OpenAI frames the dispute in terms of fair use and national interest in AI leadership. While not binding, the filing could be an influential element as the Southern District of New York considers the claims brought by The New York Times.
